If you were a superuser, how high would your vpip be?

Skills make u like a superuser.

hmmm very interesting thread.

a solid player for me plays, well... solid POST flop. not too passive, not too aggressive. doesn't get out of line too much and makes most of his/her money by exploiting the fish and other player's mistakes. IMO it doesn't matter so much whether you are TAG or LAG pre flop, what matters is how you play post flop.

with that said, i think it's fair to say that solid ABC poker is going to be optimal and provide the highest winrate at 200NL and below, simply due to the amount of fishy players and bad regs. not to mention with so many tables on sites like stars and tilt you can table select very effectively. there's no need to get tricky or too aggressive post flop as a lot of players will make mistakes that you can profit from.

HOWEVER, what happens when you move up to midstakes (400NL+)?? obviously the number of fish and bad players drops significantly. you will find yourself playing more and more with the same regs (especially on smaller sites like ipoker and ongame). these regs will probably be good enough to realise that you play solid post flop, and they will be able to exploit it with sheer aggression and 'spazzy' plays to move you off your hands. i mean flopping sets, the nuts etc isn't easy you know!

post flop aggression is the key.

the imfromsweden thread in 'poker goals and challenges' section of the forum gives you a great insight into what i'm saying. look at how light he gets called down because players know that he is capable of some 'spazzy' plays.

these regs that you play with need to know that you can triple barrel with air, or check raise all in on the river with air. they need to know you have these kind of plays in your arsenal, so that you get called down light and paid off in future situations. if you're just triple barrelling with the nuts everytime, then surely players will catch onto that after time and play appropriately.

ofcourse i'm not saying that you should suddenly play like a monkey once you reach 2/4 and higher, but you need to show other players what you're capable of. this is where the skill comes in. you have to be clever with these aggressive 'spazzy' plays and pick your spots carefully. most importantly, you have to represent some sort of legitimate hand.

CW i agree with a lot of what you say, but this paragraph does raise some questions... you say here that as you moved up you became a looser player, but i mean just because you played looser pre flop doesn't mean that your style changed with regards to post flop play, or did it? also you say that a lot of these players were break even/marginal players. but shouldn't you take into account that there are less fish and much better players at these stakes and beyond? hence the smaller winrates. also im sure if these players are calling down/going all in light versus eachother, then they probably have good reason to, due to past history.


cliffs: IMO solid ABC play is fine for 200NL and below, but very exploitable once you reach midstakes (400NL+).

semi-grunch...

imo i dont think it matters if you play lag or tag, i think its about playing whatever style maximizes your ev in respect to where you think your edge lies, obv taking into account #tables/tiltissues etcetc.

I think this is because playing loose is considered "cool" so people do it w/o considering what and where their actual maximum edge is. If everyone knew and played their optimal vpip, then id say that 27%vpip players would on average have higher winrates.

I think to make a looser style more profitable, you have to make correct decisions an exponentially higher % of the time the looser you play, as to compensate for the increasingly weaker range that goes with it.

By this logic there will obv be some sort of vpip% equilibrium where even making 100% correct decisions after the start of the hand will become suboptimal as the range becomes so weak that not even perfect decisions can make the hand profitable.

Therefore the correct vpip% to strive for is one as close to that equilibrium as possible while having an honest grasp of your own ability to make correct decisions. (eg if you know you cant play a marginal spot like flatting 97s oop profitably, then avoid it¹)

Basically about taking everything into account and finding your own maximum expectation.

_{1.like i said at the beginning, this would be taking into account a lot of things, espc #of tables, as im sure a lot of people fold 97s oop when they could play it profitably, but doesnt suit their overall hourly in the grand scheme of things. /disclaimer}

sick, first time i've seen a footnote in a 2p2 post... boundaries are being broken ladies and gentlemen

Very good read, ty OP

I don't think my definition implicitly excludes your example,

"When the pot's 50bb's or more, you should usually have a hand that compares very favorably against your opponent's." Which I think qualifies here.

Also, I never say "Don't get in 99 pre-flop," I say "If you're getting in AQ or 99 pre-flop standardly in late position..." STANDARD is the keyword.

Also, there are a few problems with this assumption:

1) It assumes that my opponent's range is static, which of course it is not. While given a certain dynamic this is fine, but that's only for the duration of the dynamic, as it's is EXTREMELY easy to exploit. Again, if AQ is going in "standardly," you're going to get completely boned by a simple gear change.

As an Edward myself, I've made incredible amounts of money by getting in KK against 99 and my opponent thinking "oh what a cooler," when I simply nitted up against an aggro 3-bettor.

2) If you're 3-betting 77 and comparable hands intending to always get them in, you often have a gutted flat-calling range, which is creates extremely exploitable post-flop ranges.

Wow, this was arguably the best post in this thread.

Yeah, I guess this wasn't really clear. I became looser more because my post-flop skill was getting better, I was working with stronger players, etc., and not so much a function of my moving up.

I feel like a lot of these players just made plays without history more out of insane fear of being outplayed moreso than making educated reads. A great example of this is CaptainTable (a very good HSNL player) playing against Browerkid (a very good SSNL player) at 2/4 in a Cardrunner's video. He just puts in a lot of money without any real reason. If you ever see my 2/4 videos on CR, I get regulars calling with A3s OOP and then calling off on QJT OOP with no read. Obviously that might be video-related spazzing, but still. Terribad.

Yeah I agree it's essentially what I tried to say when I said
The looser you play the better your decision making needs to be imo

Finally the discussion is being geared away from a specific "Edward" or "Jacob" based style and mored towards a situational game. Playing situational poker is, by any definition, solid.

OP spoke about laying down KK against super aggression from nits, while calling heavy action with weaker holdings against maniacs. This is adaptation.

If you're sitting at a table with 5 of those nits and you're playing 20/17, you're a fool and far from solid. You should profitably play that table at 40/37 and have a graph that is red-line dominated. Very few, if any, pots that you play should be above 20 bb's and you're almost never going to see a showdown. If you're not attempting to steal > 70% against these players, you have an easy leak to fix!

Conversely, you sit down at a table full of 40/37s, solid will be that 20/17 style, perhaps tighter. You can even argue that a 40/10 style will yield higher profits depending on their post flop tendencies. Just fitting into your ABC world wins you a great deal here.

Defining yourself in any style is the antithesis of solid, and I believe that's the argument clowntable is putting forward.

Great post OP to inspire this discussion.

I think another point is, mass-multitabling favours a tighter style. Because there are less fish and more regs these days, people are playing more and more tables, and it's easier to add tables if you have don't have a high VPIP style which gives you a lot of marginal decisions.

But that further reinforces the point that doing this is usually going to cap your progression at that point. Pretty much accepted wisdom your game is going to develop way less playing 8/12 tables than 4. And you'll reach a point where you're game is just not developing enough MMT to sufficiently beat the level above if you try and step up.

If you've hit your level and are happy 12-tabling it for great profits, that's great. It might be the most money-sound decision. But it can hardly be considered an apotheosis.

I think you're saying something among my earlier lines JR.
What I mean by this is a lot of regs seem to have an attitude of "he's a winning reg, I'll stay out of his way" and not "he's another player with leaks, how do I exploit them?".

I mean I think the argument "should we be the solid player?" just isn't enough. We should be. And that is a massive battle in itself.
But why stop there? And for that matter why do we need to attain the ultimate mastery of solid before we add in other moves we see as +EV?

Why can't we make moves 4-tabling a 12-tabling money making machine doesn't have the conditions to make?

Good point. I guess the dilemma is it's so much harder nowadays to 4-table and build a roll for the next level, assuming you rely on poker for part or all of your income. 4-tabling and learning to exploit regs will give you the skills to move up, but not necessarily the bankroll, and it must be really hard for a pro grinder to stomach the loss in short-term income and escape the 'play a million tables, bumhunt fish and never move up' cycle.

god

i just got that

wp sir

no, of course it's not bad to aspire to be a 5/10 reg

spewing all over the place at 1/2 because "playing ABC won't work at 5/10", however, is, indeed, bad

again, this is just ridiculous....please illuminate the reasons why "nits" cannot adjust?

In my experience lags are actually much, much, much worse at adjusting to different game conditions than "standard" tags

God I like you'r CR videos, your funny

I guess I was being a bit too provocative, sry.
I think ur right that in practice spew monkeys often cannot change.
What I meant is , in THEORY, A LAG is used to
a) marginal situations
b) non-marginal situations

A nit is used to
b) non-marginal situations

hence, a LAG should in theory be more well-versed.

Anwy, this whole thread is using too much simplification (and maybe I am aswell) and I dont think its so fruitful as you'd first think, b/c of that reason.

This post covers it pretty well. Defining people as "solid", "loose" whatever is misunderstanding the basic principle, cash poker is 100% exploitative, period. There is only good and bad. Having a "style" of play that you stick to regardless of table conditions or villains tendencies is inherently bad, it must be.

The caveat to this is covered well here:

Simply, the better you are, the more hands you can play profitably. The aim is always to maximise +EV. If your playing correctly, your VPIP/PFR should vary hugely from table to table sometimes. If you can profitably play a hand in any given spot (a la the 97s OOP above), then it is a mistake not to do so, no matter how difficult the situation might become. OP mentioned spots where you are pushing a 3/4% edge in preflop pushing wars, and whether or not to take them. As always, it depends. Against OP, or any other good reg, we take them all day. Against the fish, we are never jamming low +EV spots, because why take a 4% edge when we can get a much larger edge playing through the streets?

Why do we only get that edge against fish? Seems like slowplaying pre-flop is the nuts against a lot of spazzier players.

Doesn't anyone believe in playing pots, especially in position, with disguised or unusually strong ranges?

My point is, we try and take the best edge possible. Against a good TAG reg, 4% is really pretty good, they are unlikely to make any big mistakes, so we're happier to take that guarenteed edge. If the guy is spazzier, we still have a decision about how he spews worst. If he folds to 3-bets 80% of the time, but fires 3 barrels 75%, then of course we flat him and let him spew. If he never folds to a 3-bet, and 4 bet jams lite all the time, then we 3-bet him, even if his barrel stats are really high, as this is our best available edge.

Our best possible action, given the known variables (our hand, position, stack etc), is always a function of villains likely response. It's not really a case of believing in anything, every play / hand plan should be considered and judged on it's individual merits, with the only goal being to maximise EV.

very solid post. ty OP.

Speaking generally, players are more likely to make mistakes postflop than preflop. Part of that is because people at SSNL are transparent with their hand ranges after the flop, and against an opponent willing to exploit them they're going to get owned, frequently. The other part is that making mistakes postflop is almost always a big mistake equity wise, and it also tends to be more expensive.

Calling preflop with AQ on the button to a TAG's raise in MP is just as much of a guaranteed edge as 3betting. Quantifying how much is difficult, but in my experience against a lot of players it's the best play. Making non-sensical flop raises on Q72 is sure to arouse plenty of suspicion from a thinking opponent, and to combat this they'll often just 3bet the flop with nothing assuming your range consists of only bluffs, or with any Qx hand they'll talk themselves into losing a lot of money. Both results are excellent for us, and even when they do fold they'll be looking to spew against us later on in the session. Of course the alternate line of simply calling the flop with AQ has a lot of merit too as it reps a weak range and allows him to bluff / value bet worse hands. 3-betting AQ preflop also folds out a lot of the hands we dominate.

Obviously 3betting AQ on the button is fine and relatively standard, especially when you know they are willing to call with hands you dominate, but there are a lot of situations when it's likely the most +EV line to call and underrepresent your hand. His calling range to a 3bet is the biggest factor. Some players have no problem calling 89s or 33 to a 3bet OOP with 100bbs. Against those players 3betting is almost mandatory since they have a weak, exploitable range that they're playing out of position.


I think CW was mostly just commenting on the statement that you 3bet AQ "all day" against regs for some kind of guaranteed edge. There's nothing wrong with it, but as you said, you have to judge plays by their own individual merit. Therefore you should see that there are a lot of situations where 3betting is absolutely worse than calling with a hand like AQ preflop, specifically if the original raiser isn't prone to defending his 3bets loosely or if the players behind you have a propensity to squeeze.

Crossed wires here slightly, the OP (below) was what I was discussing. Flatting AQ IP or OOP can often be far better than 3-betting, I agree. My point is we only turn down that 3/4% edge from getting it in if a greater edge is available playing it differently.

Please, look Nanonoko up. Look at his NL200 video and see what he likes to do. One of his favorite hands are J5 and he likes to 4bet/5bet bluff all in pre-flop with it. Don't believe me?

http://strategy.pokernews.com/strate...d=102881787001

Fast forward to around 32:30 for crazy hero call, and choose the other video down in the corner and fast forward to around 12:40 to see J6 all in bluff shove!

Nanonoko does NOT win all that money just because of "solid nit fold when i have best hand" play.

/Thread